Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

INDU ● NUMBER 061 ● 1st SESSION ● 42nd PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Chair

Mr. Dan Ruimy

1

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

This is my consistent refrain in all that I do. It's all about people. It's the lens through which I view all of our support for Canadian ● (0845) science. It's why our approach has been, and will continue to be, to [English] make investments to provide people with the right skills and opportunities to make their greatest possible contributions to The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Canadian science. For example, through the Canada first research Lib.)): Thank you, everybody, for being here today for meeting 61 excellence fund, we have devoted a full $900 million to the of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Canadian researchers who are taking action on grand initiatives like Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we are reviewing the main quantum computing, stem cell research, brain science, and so on. estimates, 2017-18: votes 1 and 5 under Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; votes 1 and 5 under Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency; votes 1, 5, and 10 under Canadian This year's budget is also investing $125 million to maintain and Space Agency; vote 1 under Canadian Tourism Commission; vote 1 enhance Canada's international reputation for excellence in artificial under Copyright Board; votes 1, 5, 10, L15, and L20 under Industry; intelligence. The committee may be familiar with some of the votes 1 and 5 under Western Economic Diversification; votes 1 and 5 amazing people already doing world-leading work in this field, such under Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of as Yoshua Bengio in Montreal, who is a world expert in deep Quebec; votes 1 and 5 under Federal Economic Development learning and artificial neural networks and Geoffrey Hinton at the Agency for Southern Ontario; votes 1, 5, and 10 under National University of Toronto, who is doing groundbreaking work in Research Council of Canada; votes 1 and 5 under Natural Sciences computer science and artificial intelligence. and Engineering Research Council; votes 1 and 5 under Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; vote 1 under Standards Council of Canada; and vote 1 under Statistics Canada, referred to It's important to remember that all these investments are in the committee on Thursday, February 23, 2017. addition to the boost we have already provided to our three national granting councils through budget 2016. They now have access to an Today we have the Honourable Kirsty Duncan, Minister of additional $95 million per year in ongoing permanent funding. This Science along with John Knubley, deputy minister; Kelly Gillis, is the highest amount of new annual funding for discovery research associate deputy minister; and Lawrence Hanson, assistant deputy in more than a decade. This new unfettered funding supports the minister. efforts of tens of thousands of researchers and trainees at schools and Thank you very much for attending, everybody. I'm going to pass facilities across the country. it on to Minister Duncan for opening comments. Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Minister of Science): Good morning, That said, we haven't forgotten that more than 20,000 scientists everyone. and specialists are engaged in science and technology activities, Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be here this morning with government science. To help give these world-class professionals the our deputy minister, John Knubley; our associate deputy minister, tools they need, we will develop a new federal science infrastructure Kelly Gillis; and our assistant deputy minister, Lawrence Hanson. strategy. I'm really pleased to be here this morning as this esteemed committee reviews the main estimates for 2017-18. You will know ● (0850) that this fiscal year the total for our department is up $1.3 billion over last. This is largely due to the investments in research infrastructure that our government made with the post-secondary [Translation] institutions strategic investment fund. This $2-billion investment demonstrates our priorities when it comes to supporting scientific excellence in this country. When we are investing in such a major We've already kicked things off by providing $80 million to way to build and upgrade Canada's research facilities, this is really replace the Sidney Centre for Plant Health with a new, world-class an investment in the people who make science happen. research facility. 2 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

We're also making investments directly in the work of these That's exactly why we have instituted new equity requirements in federal researchers in all the departments. the Canada excellence research chairs competition. Right now, there [English] is only one active female CERC. This is unacceptable. We have to do better. I have told university presidents that I am expecting to see a On the social science side, we have set aside support for the change. community and college social innovation fund, which fosters community college partnerships aiming at achieving beneficial ● (0855) social outcomes. Science is helping communities understand and meet the challenges and opportunities around them. This is one of [Translation] the ways we are making good on our commitment to the multidisciplinary nature of science. I truly believe that we can make What's more, I'll continue to explore other measures to encourage so much more of the relationship among the pure sciences, the more diversity and equity in the research community. If Canada humanities, and the social sciences. wants to achieve its full potential, we need all people to feel welcomed in the lab, the field and the classroom. I can't say it We do all this because, again, it's all about people. It's about enough. The key word here is people. nurturing our domestic talent, even from the very earliest age, and all throughout their schooling and careers. That's why we are investing [English] to teach grade school students to code—the language of tomorrow. We are also providing major support for PromoScience, a highly successful program that encourages young Canadians interested in The science review also brought into sharp focus the challenges science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In addition, we facing early-career researchers and new investigators. Young are funding up to 10,000 new work-integrated learning opportunities scientists come with fresh insights and new ways to solve old per year through Mitacs research internships. problems. We have only to think about James Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin. Their ages were 24, 36, and 32, respectively, As science minister, I want all young Canadians to be able to see when their work led to the discovery of the DNA double helix. themselves taking part in the world of science. As I hope I've shown Think of the science we may be missing out on for want of so far, our government is investing strategically to make the most of supporting our early-career researchers. today's and tomorrow's homegrown talent, but we also need to make sure that we are attracting the best international researchers to We hope to announce the appointment of the chief science adviser Canada. before the summer recess. He or she will be feeding into this [Translation] discussion as well. That's why, in honour of Canada's 150th anniversary, I've announced a new type of research chair to attract top-tier scientists I am confident that if all partners, public and private, are united in from around the world. We're working on implementing this new working toward a singular goal, together we will be able to create a chair quickly so that universities can recruit researchers as soon as research system that is bold, vibrant, and equitable. possible. [English] Thank you for having me to this committee, and I'm looking forward to receiving your questions. Mr. Chair, I'd like to finish this morning by discussing the science review and how it will inform the future of Canadian research and The Chair: Thank you very much. scholarship. As you may know, a broad external review of the federal agencies had not been done since the 1970s. Simply put, it We're just going to jump right into questions. was time. I am profoundly grateful to all the distinguished panel members, Mr. Arya, you have the first seven minutes. including the chair, Dr. David Naylor, for their service. I am reviewing the panel's recommendations now with a critical eye, Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. through that people lens that I've been talking about. I'm pleased to see that the report talks a lot about talent. It talks about how we can Thank you all for coming. best support students, researchers, professors, and everyone else involved in our research ecosystem. Minister, I'm so glad that you're talking about diversity. We had It particularly highlights diversity and equity as places where we Bill C-25 in this committee, and when that bill was introduced, the must do better. This rings so true with me. Throughout my own government did not show any direction as to what it meant by academic career, I have consistently advocated for more diversity in “diversity”. After deliberation in this committee, the government science. Science needs more women and more young people. It finally agreed to put into the regulation what it means by “diversity” needs more indigenous peoples and more Canadians with disabil- in the bill. It says that it includes designated groups such as women, ities. Because, as University of Victoria president Jamie Cassels so indigenous people, visible minorities, people with disabilities, and eloquently says, “diversity is the foundation of excellence”. others. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 3

I noticed in your speech that you talked about diversity. I would messy. Scientists go back and forth seamlessly between fundamental like to quote you. You said that science needs more women and more science and applied science. young people, that it needs more indigenous peoples and more differently abled Canadians. I guess it was an oversight that you didn't include visible minorities there in the speech, but that's okay, I I'm really proud of the investments our government has made. In know that you mean well. budget 2016, we gave the largest top-up in a decade to the three federal granting councils. It was $95 million. That was for 2016-17 On the investment in research, I'm so glad that we are back and each year going forward. investing in fundamental research. It's very important for us to invest in this because this is what continues to keep Canada at the forefront of the new, global, knowledge-based economy. I won't talk about the fundamental review at this point. It matters. I think it's really important for this committee to understand the world- One thing I know is that the bulk of the funds that are going to renowned peer review system we have in this country. When people fund research are used very productively by the universities, but apply for a grant, the granting councils put together a world-class anecdotal evidence also states that some of it is going—and I don't panel to review each grant application. They're carefully reviewed, know how to put it—to fund deadwood, that it's continuously and then the results are made public. We have, then, this world-class subsidizing people who are not productive. Is there anything that's review system. measurable? How can you measure the outputs or the deliverables of the huge investments we are making? ● (0900) Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Chandra, for your question. You've raised a number of issues; I'll try to address them all. Mr. Chandra Arya: Thank you, Minister. Thank you for your commitment to equity and diversity. As you know, our government is the first government to have a gender- balanced cabinet. In this last budget, budget 2017, there is a gender Second, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce released their statement. “Ontario Economic Report 2017” this past February. It's a survey of all its members—small, medium, and large businesses in Ontario. When I took on this role, I made it very clear that I would make equity, diversity, and science a key priority. I began having discussions with the universities and with the granting agencies. In What they identified as the topmost concern of all members was September we brought back the university and college academic “acquiring suitable staff”. They are finding difficulty in acquiring staff survey, the UCASS survey. It had been in place since 1937, but people qualified to join as their employees. On the other hand, when it was cancelled under the previous government. Come this spring, we were doing the manufacturing study here, the representatives of we will have data to know if people are progressing through the the universities association mentioned that their graduates were ranks at the same rate and whether they're making equal pay. finding it difficult to get jobs. In October we put in place new equity and diversity requirements for our Canada excellence research chairs. These are among the most On the one hand, then, we have the universities stating that their prestigious awards in the world. They offer $10 million over seven candidates are finding it difficult to get jobs, and on the other hand years. Right now we have only one woman who is a CERC. It's we have the businesses saying that they cannot get suitable staff. unacceptable. How can we use our funding power to make sure the universities align with, so that they can meet the requirements of, industry and In October we posted that diversity and equity data on the Social businesses? Sciences and Humanities Research Council website. It was the first time. You will know that in the last few weeks we've put in place new requirements regarding the Canada research chairs. The Chair: You have about 10 seconds to respond to that question. The Canada research chairs have been in place since 2000. They're very prestigious to have. We're saying to the universities that if they have more than five of these research chairs, they're going to Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Chandra, for your question. I'll have to put in place an equity and diversity plan by the end of the be as brief as I can. year, that we expect them to meet those targets by 2019, and that if they don't, they won't be having their proposals reviewed. One of the investments we've made in budget 2017 is for Mitacs. To come to your point about fundamental science, fundamental We are funding $221 million for 10,000 work-integrated learning science is a key driver of innovation. Our government's priority is spaces for our students. We want them to have that real-world economic growth, jobs, and growing the middle class and those experience. working hard to join it. If you want innovation, a key driver of economic growth, you need fundamental science, discovery science, The Chair: Thank you very much. curiosity-based science. It's a continuum through to applied science, innovation, those commercial products and services that we'd like to sell. I want to be clear. It is not an easy continuum. It's actually very Mr. Dreeshen, you have seven minutes. 4 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): Thank engineers who largely happened to be male. They made air bag you very much. prototypes that fit a male-sized body. When those cars went onto the road, women and children were injured, or worse. Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here this morning, and to all of your folks from the department. We need to make sure that everybody is included, that they come I've just come from a meeting where our interim leader, Rona with different perspectives and ideas. They might use different Ambrose, spoke to the Economic Club of Canada. When we talk methodologies, they might ask different questions, and we might get about great women in leadership roles, I think of her. I think of different results that benefit all Canadians. Deborah Grey and Kim Campbell. These are people who won their jobs because of the great skills they had. I hope everyone is attending Science Odyssey events. We have I remember going into Central America where I talked about how 600 of them across the country right now. I know you were there to get women engaged and involved in politics. At that time, 80% of yesterday, and Kate, and I thank you for coming. Canadians had a female premier. There are great opportunities for people to work and use the skills they have, and they need to have chances from everybody. Sometimes that comes via political parties, It's really important that we encourage young people to enter to make sure that you elect strong people who are there to be able to science, particularly women. take on these positions. I say that to tie into the discussions you have when you've said to Mr. Earl Dreeshen: These are great examples, Madam Minister. universities that if they don't meet quotas or diversity targets, However, the question is what the government is going to do when it something is going to be done. Of course, what we've heard is that comes to making decisions about those particular chairs. I under- there will be a withdrawal of funding, and so on. stand why it's important. Don't get me wrong. I understand and recognize that. However, the statement was made that the I'd like you to tell us what that actually means. How will you roll universities are going to have to conform. They are going to have out that policy? Is it something that your government will be to explain the rationale and everything else, and then decisions will legislating, or will it be departmental policy at the tri-agency be made. institutional programs secretariat? How will you be withholding funding for those institutions that don't meet the targets that you've looked at? My question is on the decision-making process and where that is going to go. The other aspect of it is, are we going to be seeing decisions about research funding no longer in the hands of the experts who review and evaluate the science but rather in the hands of politicians, ● (0910) consultants, or bureaucrats with little experience in advanced research? What happens to the tri-agency institutional programs Hon. Kirsty Duncan: I want to be clear. These were targets that secretariat? the universities voluntarily agreed to, back in 2006. These targets ● (0905) were based on discussions, but also on statistics around population. The universities committed to these targets. It is now 2017, and those Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Earl, thank you for your question. targets have not been met. Let me be clear. Equality and excellence go hand in hand. I've gone across this country and the women I meet with are outstanding I am saying that we are going to put in place a policy to ensure researchers. I think of people such as Victoria Kaspi, who won the that they have equity and diversity plans in place and show us how Herzberg medal, which is, as you know, NSERC's highest prize, just they are actually going to make the targets they voluntarily agreed to. the other year. I think of Molly Shoichet who just won a Killam It is always based on excellence, but if they come forward with Prize. There are excellent women researchers. chairs who are not meeting the numbers, there is the possibility that Our priority is always excellence. That means the proposals are funding will be withheld until they bring forward new options that reviewed. I've talked about our world-class review process. are more reflective of the targets they have voluntarily agreed to. However, we have not seen the increase in women and other under-represented groups in the sciences that we should have. We Mr. Earl Dreeshen: I have only a few seconds left. know when we bring all minds to the table, to the lab, to the field, it is good for research; it is good for Canadians. There have been cuts to both the National Research Council of I will give specific examples of what happens when women and Canada and the centres of excellence for commercialization and diverse groups are not included. I'll start with the example of heart research program. My tax dollars have been moved from certain valves. The first heart valves were created by cardiologists who areas. I'll just pick one, because that may be all I have time for. happened largely to be men, and they made heart valves that fit a male-sized heart and not a woman-sized heart. The first voice recognition software was calibrated only to men's voices. The third Why are you cutting $1.7 million for the centres of excellence for example I'll give is air bags. The first air bags in cars were created by commercialization and research program? May 16, 2017 INDU-61 5

Hon. Kirsty Duncan: I will have our assistant deputy answer this committee, and with the voting in the House of Commons on that. Bill C-25, so I'd ask you to consider that as that draft legislation Mr. Lawrence Hanson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science works its way through. and Innovation, Department of Industry): It's just a product of the competition cycle for the CECRs themselves. They are for a limited The other one to review as a scientist and working so well within number of years. As new competitions are launched, new our academic communities is Bill C-36. I won't touch on too much investments are made. We are expecting to launch a new competition of it, but at this point I would appeal for a review of it. It's amazing, under the CECRs shortly, but it's really an issue of cash flow and Madam Minister, that despite the testimony of Munir Sheikh and competition timing. Wayne Smith, and other testimony that we had on this committee, The Chair: Thank you very much. not a single amendment was able to pass through this committee with regard to the inclusion of their contributions. We're going to move on to Mr. Masse. You have seven minutes. Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In fact, several witnesses who have high profiles and respect in academia, not only at home here but internationally, and were also Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here. the former census operators, both resigning over differences of opinion in the scientific approach to the census going from long form I do actually appreciate the movement that's taking place at the to short form and so forth and also provisions. Not a single word of universities and colleges, because they are also an addition to the their testimony, or of any of the witnesses, will be included in the overall society problem that we have with the inclusion of diversity. legislation that's been proposed to go back to the House of Commons My background is as an employment specialist on behalf of persons at this time. with disabilities and youth at risk, and I can tell you that.... A clear example is that women still do not receive the same pay for the same jobs. I would like to move though, Madam Minister, to the review panel and the expectations for it. I think that was an excellent approach. In It is important that this movement is happening. The unfortunate the 1970s we didn't even have the concept of a mobile phone. I think thing—and I like your commentary about this—is the fact that the the first time I saw a mobile phone was in a movie with Mel Gibson. legislation that is being proposed by your government under Bill The phone weighed about 10 pounds and looked like a World War II C-25, the reform to the Canada Business Corporations Act, does not phone. do the same thing. You are moving to a comply or explain model for diversity, and the legislation doesn't even mention the word At any rate, can you give us an indication of when we might hear “gender”. back about that, and what type of movement and resources the I would like to get your thoughts on how this is really at odds with government has committed toward that? what's taking place with regard to legislation in the House of Commons. It is clear that the voluntary commitment by public ● (0915) institutions that have a board of directors who are assigned by the public has required this type of step to change the behaviour with Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Brian. regard to inclusion, especially given the populations, diversities, and gender balance that they represent, their customers being students. I'll talk a bit about the fundamental review. Since the 1970s there has not been a comprehensive review of the funding ecosystem. Can Second, why isn't it carried forth in terms of legislation to the you imagine any other system that has been allowed to go 40 years Canada Business Corporations Act and Bill C-25? I had several without being reviewed? Therefore, I was very committed to doing amendments that were defeated at this committee. this. Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Brian, thank you for your question. We know that when boards are more diverse, companies do better. We had this incredible blue ribbon panel chaired by Dr. David It is the same for science. We want people who come with different Naylor, the former president of the University of Toronto. It included perspectives and different ideas. We want people asking different people like Dr. Art McDonald, our newest Nobel Prize winner; Dr. questions to come forward. Martha Piper, the former president of UBC; Mike Lazaridis of BlackBerry; and the chief scientist of Quebec, Rémi Quirion. I have spent 25 years of my life fighting for more equity and diversity in science. Yesterday, I was at Science Odyssey. I met two I want to begin by saying thank you to them. They have worked incredible women who have reached the level of full professor in tirelessly for their commitment, for their insights that will improve engineering. They are saying, as we are hearing from across the the ecosystem here in Canada. As well, I want to thank all the country, “Thank you for standing up for the Canada research chairs”. individual researchers, the research organizations, and the univer- It has been 11 years, and those voluntary targets haven't been made. sities and other academic institutions that contributed to that review. They are grateful for the changes that they see coming, and that the I was pleased to receive the response on April 10. I was very clear universities will be held to account. that this report would not be buried. It was released at the Public Mr. Brian Masse: I appreciate that, but your government Policy Forum so that we could begin a national discussion about legislation is not doing the same thing. It's at odds with itself, with how we fund federal support for fundamental science. 6 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

There are 35 recommendations. They talk about the need for You've also talked about needing to support fundamental science. additional funds for investigator-led research. There were also issues That's part of my research mandate, so we have put in place the top- of governance and coordination, the need for more equity and up of $95 million to the granting councils. That is unfettered money, diversity, the need to support early-career researchers, and the need representing a real change from the previous government that tied to make the system more nimble and responsive. For example, if money. If you look at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Zika or Ebola hit, money would be available that we could get out to Council, in 2005 there was no tied money. In 2006, 9% was tied, and the research community quickly and also support multidisciplinary before budget 2016, that was 37%. So this is unfettered money. research. Mr. Lloyd Longfield: Thank you. We have big challenges, whether it's climate change or antimicrobial resistance. We need to bring different disciplines to Within the Social Sciences and Humanities Research funding, I the table and to support risky research. Those are some of the notice something that Mr. Dreeshen also brought up, in terms of the recommendations from the report. reduction in centres of excellence for commercialization in research. The Chair: Thank you very much. I spoke yesterday with Universities Canada and they mentioned Mr. Longfield, you have seven minutes. some concerns around the intellectual property mobilization program Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. that was cancelled in 2009. We have brought it back, but there are some reductions in funding around intellectual property mobiliza- Thank you, Madam Minister, and the support people for being tion. This committee is just about to start an IP study, and I think a here today. key part of that study is going to be technology transfer. I'm concerned that we may be heading in one direction and the Getting back to the estimates, it looks as if there's an increased government may be heading in the other direction in terms of focus on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council technology transfer and funding of technology transfer. with $86.8 million of planned spending. Madam Minister, you talked about the need for fundamental Is there anything there that I'm misreading into it, or where are we research in a previous conversation we had when you were down in in terms of a focus on technology transfer? Washington. You were talking about the separation between Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Lloyd, for your work in this fundamental research and innovation, and how innovation can come area. from fundamental research, but there is really no guarantee; that's why it's fundamental research. I actually would like to thank all of the committee for being down Could you comment on the need for catching up on NSERC in Washington, D.C., two weeks ago. Thank you for being there to funding, where we are, and where we need to be to regain our recognize and celebrate Dr. Art McDonald, and thank you for the ground there? important meetings you had down there. ● (0920) I'm going to use artificial intelligence as a way to highlight the Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Lloyd. You've brought in a shift from fundamental research through to applied and on to number of pieces here. You started with the National Research commercialization. Canada really is a world leader when it comes to Council, so I'll address that first. artificial intelligence. I think of people like Geoffrey Hinton and National Research Council has a proud 100-year history in this Yoshua Bengio, and we have these incredible areas from Toronto to country, and we want to make sure it succeeds going forward. You Waterloo, the hub in Montreal, and out in Edmonton. Our talent and will know that we have a new president, Mr. Iain Stewart. He comes our ideas are in high demand around the world. We want to make with a tremendous background of both academic and government sure that the activity stays here in Canada. work in science, technology, innovation, and economic develop- ment. In this budget 2017, we're investing $125 million in artificial intelligence to create a pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy, When he came on board, my colleague Minister Bains and I sat and we know that with these research hubs—and, Frank, I think of down with him. I said that there needed to be a lot of listening, and you in Montreal. Montreal has the Canada first research excellence he has had hundreds of conversations with employees of the NRC. In fund, and part of that funding went to artificial intelligence in the spring we'll come forward with ideas of how we can strengthen Montreal. the NRC. I will just remind the committee that we had a $900-million I've been clear that I don't want it to be a political football any investment in artificial intelligence in September. The idea is that if longer. We want to make sure that its industrial research assistance we create these research hubs, we know that companies will be program, IRAP, which has 250 advisers across the country, provides attracted. We also know there will be applied research and that we help to small businesses—last year, it was 2,500 businesses, and will get commercialization. helped support 11,000 jobs—continues, and is strong. ● (0925) I'd also like to see fundamental research strengthened, because that's where the innovation will come going forward. Mr. Lloyd Longfield: Thank you. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 7

Mr. Knubley, did you have something to add? about Stephen Harper. We're talking about you two. Why would one Mr. John Knubley (Deputy Minister, Department of Indus- have one, and the other have a different one? try): Yes. I would just add that very consistent with Minister Duncan's example of artificial intelligence, broadly speaking, in the Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Ben, I am going to do two sentences before innovation agenda, we are looking at a number of points of interest, I hand it to my deputy minister. We are taking a very different if you like, with respect to tech transfer. approach than the previous government. Another concrete example would be the initiatives related to our The previous government cut scientists, muzzled scientists, incubators. We have funded incubators over the last few years. scientific evidence— Basically, these are entities that are specifically designed to help take the excellent science, which Minister Duncan is focused on and talking about, to the marketplace. The Honourable Navdeep Bains Mr. Ben Lobb: If that's the approach you're going to take will also want to speak more broadly about intellectual property and Minister, then don't. the issues at play there, and how we need to move forward, from the innovation agenda perspective, to really promote a strong intellectual Mr. John Knubley: I would like to talk about Bill C-25. I know property regime in Canada to make sure that tech transfer happens. the Honourable Navdeep Bains will have another opportunity on Thursday to speak to that. Mr. Lloyd Longfield: Thank you, and thanks for your support for agriculture. I just had to sneak that in. In that context, the bill does identify a name and comply approach. Hon. Kirsty Duncan: I just wanted to add to that actually, and I'll Similarly, with respect to the CRC program, we're proposing that all be really quick. institutions with five or more chairs—these are specifically the Lloyd thank you for being such a champion in this area. As you medium and large universities—must table a plan. It's not enough to know, $70 million was invested in budget 2017 in agricultural do targets; they must also table a plan to reach the targets. research. When we were down in Washington, the National Science Foundation told us that the areas it wanted to come up to Canada to As Minister Duncan was mentioning, the challenge, when you see in terms of our research were related to research in neuroscience, look at the targets they set of their own will, is that they have not quantum, and Arctic, but also in biodiversity at the University of been meeting those targets. What we're asking them to do is, again, Guelph and the bar-coding that's done there. name and identify what it is they are doing. Mr. Lloyd Longfield: Thank you. ● (0930) The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Lobb, you have seven minutes. Mr. Ben Lobb: Fair enough. All I was trying to get at was how can two people in the same department have two different Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC): Thanks very much, approaches on what you're trying to achieve, which is kind of the Minister, for coming here today. same thing. I'll leave it at that and move to a different topic now. I want to go back to touch briefly on the diversity you set out for universities. Again, I know there have been a couple of other Within the lobbying registry with whom the minister has met with, members that have talked about this. Minister Duncan has met with almost all who one can say are In the regulations, again, Mr. Masse and I fought really hard to get reasonable, they're universities, etc. it actually into the bill. We weren't able to do so, but in the regulations, it's basically just comply or explain. There's no target The one that I would question though or try to understand, and set. maybe you can't comment on it, is how is it that the Minister of Science meets with the Woodbine Entertainment Group? Basically, When you and Minister Bains are sitting around the table having it's a casino and horse racing track. What relevance is there to that? Is discussions, does that come up where in one piece we're talking that a constituent of yours? How does that happen? about the makeup of our corporate boards having a much weaker and lesser standard than the chairs at these universities? Does that come Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you. up? Why would the department come at it from one direction on one, then another direction on the other? Why wouldn't it be the same? Yes, Woodbine Racetrack is a constituent in my riding. They come Hon. Kirsty Duncan: I will speak a bit, and then I will turn it to see me in my riding office. over our deputy minister, John Knubley. I really want to bring home that we're taking a very different approach on science than the previous government. Mr. Ben Lobb: That makes a lot of sense, then.

The previous government— Another question I have for you is on the opioid crisis. There will Mr. Ben Lobb: Sorry, I don't want to get into the before or after. be some research and there has been some research, but what else is It's 2017 now. Your colleague, Minister Bains, brought a bill forward there we can do? This goes back to when we did studies on this that had one set, and yours had a different. We don't need to talk when I was the chair of the health committee. 8 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

Are chair positions going to be appointed from coast to coast, to 600 events happening across the country, or whether it's $50 million try to understand the issues with the opioid crisis—and the other to teach grade school children to code. fallout from it—from an urban perspective, a small urban perspective, or a rural perspective? I come from a rural area. We The last area you hit on was the SIF. As you know, in budget 2016 have the same issues. They have different roots, perhaps, but what we made a $2-billion investment in research and innovation are we looking at here for funding to research this issue? infrastructure across the country. Much of our infrastructure was Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Ben, thank you for the question and for 25 years of age. This is good for our students. We want them to have highlighting this very sad tragedy in our country. I just want to begin the most up-to-date labs and tools. They are going to be the ones out by saying that my heart goes out to all those who are affected, their in the workforce in the jobs of the future. The $2 billion could be families, and their friends. matched by the provinces, the territories, and other organizations. We're really pleased. We've announced 300 projects. Whether it's This issue—as you know—would fall under the Minister of Holland College in Prince Edward Island, Centennial College in Health. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research falls under her Toronto, or SAIT out west, this will make a real difference to our jurisdiction. The Minister of Health and I work very closely across country. research, but this specific example comes under her jurisdiction. Mr. Ben Lobb: I have one more— With that, I will just highlight that in budget 2017 we're also The Chair: Your time has run out. looking at federal science infrastructure. My job is to work across government to bring together the science-based departments. In We're going to move to Mr. Sheehan. You have five minutes, budget 2017 we've announced that we will work to create a science please. infrastructure strategy for the federal government, so that they have Mr. Terry Sheehan (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you very the best labs and tools. much, Minister. I appreciated the presentation, and congratulations on the launch of Science Odyssey. Mr. Terry Sheehan: Excellent. There are a couple of things happening in the Soo, including Entomica, which is a little business set up by a scientist working for I noted in the estimates that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Natural Resources Canada. It's just a side business that he runs, Research Council of Canada is seeking $101.8 million in grants which employs a lot of young people. It's all about bugs, and it's under the Canada first research excellence fund. That's $70 million really exciting. more than in the 2016-17 estimates. A couple of weeks ago he was part of the science week they hold This funding is a joint initiative of the three research granting in Sault Ste. Marie. Your friend and mine, Dr. Roberta Bondar— agencies. How will this funding be distributed between basic and Canada's first woman in space and the first neurologist in space— applied research? Perhaps you could talk as well about how this was there speaking. I was pleased that they had these young particular group makes it easier for the private sector to collaborate elementary students with Entomica at a senior citizens' home, and with academia and private business. they were teaching the seniors science. Also, I was pleased to see that it was about 65% young ladies, so we're starting to see some changes since Dr. Roberta Bondar came on the scene. Hon. Kirsty Duncan: I'll just start by reminding this esteemed committee that in budget 2017 we have the superclusters. It will be On that topic and about education, in your presentation—in the $900 million-plus that will go to areas such as agriculture, agrifood, estimates—you noted that $1.3 billion is going to be spent on SIF for advanced manufacturing, clean tech, and clean energy. post-secondary institutions. I know in the Soo that Algoma University, Sault College, and the Anishinabek discovery centre The Canada first research excellence fund invests in research received some funding, and I understand on a local level the across the country. Last September we made an investment of $900 significance that it's having. Could you tell this committee—on the million in areas such as neuroscience, agriculture and agrifood, and macro Canadian scene—what the $1.3 billion is doing for this quantum computing. These are really areas where Canada has country? tremendous strengths and can lead. ● (0935) Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Terry, and thank you always As I said, I was at the National Science Foundation. They want to for your strong support of science. I think this committee would partner with Canada. They want to see our good Arctic research, want to recognize that it's the 25th anniversary of Dr. Bondar's first quantum research, neuroscience research, and—again, I'll highlight space mission. —biodiversity research. Dr. Roberta Bondar always talks about creating a culture of curiosity. This is what we want to do in this country. All children are Lawrence, would you like to talk a bit about CFREF? born curious. They want to discover and explore. We want to foster that through elementary school, high school, and beyond. Of course, The Chair: Please respond very briefly. we're happy to do that, whether it's our investment in PromoScience of $10.8 million in this last budget, whether it's Science Odyssey's Mr. Lawrence Hanson: I'll be very brief. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 9

In terms of your question about basic versus applied research, the Let's satisfy some other group,” whether it be in Europe, the U.S., or CFREF was directed more toward the end of funding basic research, China. In reality, all that is happening is they're using these for trade but it was very much focused on areas where the institution had irritants and causing problems there. significant, demonstrated capacity, areas that could be ultimately demonstrated to be of significant economic benefit to Canada and had a strong plan for implementation. Again, although it was more How can we be assured that our scientists are going to pay toward the basic research end of the spectrum, it was very much attention to the real part of science instead of getting caught up in designed to be able to lever areas of expertise and create future this social science aspect of things? economic benefit. ● (0940) The Chair: Thank you very much. We're going to move to Mr. Dreeshen. Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Earl, for your question. You've highlighted a number of areas, so I will try to address them all. You have five minutes. Mr. Earl Dreeshen: Thank you very much. Regarding the National Research Council, we're actually making Just to come back a bit, you mentioned the $70 million that is an investment of $60 million in budget 2017 into the NRC, so that is there as far as added research is concerned. As I mentioned in my an investment. On Mitacs we are making an investment of $221 last question, we have $59.6 million that is from the National million to the NRC. That will be for 10,000 work-integrated learning Research Council of Canada's numbers. Mitacs is down $7 million, spaces. You've asked about social sciences, and then I'll come to and there is a cut of $1.7 million to the centres of excellence for agriculture. commercialization and research program. You start to get into real money there as well, things that are in the main estimates and get Social sciences and humanities are incredibly important areas. moved around. When we talk about science, we include the natural sciences and As someone who has a base in agriculture, I'm extremely happy to engineering. We include the physical sciences and health sciences. see the research dollars that are there. I disagree vehemently with the We also include the social sciences and humanities, and the reason is suggestion that those kinds of dollars and that kind of research and that they help us understand who we are and how we relate to one the research clusters were not there in the previous government. I another. think it's unfair to make those types of statements, in so many ways. In your presentation, you talked about joining with the Minister of Now I'll come to agriculture— Agriculture and Agri-Food at the Central Experimental Farm to announce $70 million to support agricultural discovery science and Mr. Earl Dreeshen: I'll just quickly interrupt before you get to innovation in the country. Included in that then, we need to have there, and there will be time. some real discussions on agriculture about things like GMOs. Health Canada has to be taking a look at things like gluten-free diets, whereas 0.7% of the population has a problem with gluten, yet there I've said this so many times. It is the difference, though, between is a fad such that 2% to 3% of people believe that they should be physical science and political science. The moment that a physical taking on these kinds of diets. Therefore, you have 1.3% to 2.3% of scientist will not say there is zero chance for something to happen, the population that is not benefiting from gluten. that's when the political scientists jump in and say, “Okay, great, that means you can't guarantee this” and that's what creates this situation Take a look at some of the science and some of the decisions that where people go after agriculture. They go after people on the have been made regarding neonicotinoids. These are the kinds of ground. It's happened in oil and gas, and it's happening in agriculture things that make me a little bit concerned when I hear people talk right now. If we don't pay attention to it and if we're not ahead of the about agricultural discovery science who don't live out there on the game, we're going to have trouble. Going back to agriculture, then, farms, on the ground, or see exactly what this does. please inform me. Yes, it's important, but where are the researchers? Are there Hon. Kirsty Duncan: I will remind this committee that we have a researchers out there in western Canada who can take a look and world-class peer review system in this country. The grant actually talk about what neonicotinoids do and why it is that the guys applications come forward, we fund the very best research, and we who have bees want to make sure that their bees aren't out there strongly support the social sciences and humanities. where the canola is that is treated with that substance? There are reasons there, but we get caught up in a bunch of rhetoric that comes from people who just don't want to have a dandelion sprayed on their On agriculture, I come back to this investment we made through lawn in downtown Toronto. the Canada first research excellence fund, the $900-million investment last September, and part of that investment was out in Those are the concerns that I have. I really want us to make sure Saskatchewan for agriculture and agrifood. that when we talk about agricultural discovery science, it goes back to agriculture and the people who really recognize what is there. I see too much of, “Here's this fad. Here's that fad. Let's talk about this. I'll let my deputy minister finish. 10 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

● (0945) her inability to get funding for her research. I see that's something Mr. John Knubley: The honourable member and the chair will you're looking at tackling. Could you touch upon that, too, please? know that I am the former deputy minister of agriculture. I would like to indicate that, in doing the innovation agenda, I think we see a huge opportunity in terms of the agriculture sector. I think we are well aware of the high level of science that is in Canada in the Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Frank, I will just bring forward that we agriculture sector. It really seems to be world leading. As the really are taking a different approach on science. The previous honourable member points out, we really want to take full advantage government cut science, cut scientists. It muzzled our scientists and of it. funding was cut. This government is committed to research science and scientists, the important work they do, and evidence-based Just to the innovation agenda in particular, we've been asked to set decision-making. The very first act of this government was to up six sectoral tables, one of which is in agriculture and agrifood. reinstate the long-form census. Why? Because we want science, Dominic Barton, in terms of the advisory council on economic evidence, and fact at the heart of decision-making. growth, has put a great deal of emphasis on agriculture and the opportunities we really have in Canada to take fuller advantage of those markets that are growing in Asia and elsewhere in the world. I'm looking forward to working with all of you towards improving The second act was to unmuzzle our scientists. In the spring, we the success of agriculture on the science side as well as on the brought forward a new communications policy that would reinforce commercialization side. that scientists can speak in an official capacity without being designated. They could speak publicly where they have scientific The Chair: Thank you very much. and technical expertise or responsibility. We're taking a different We're going to move to Mr. Baylis. approach, and that's the same when it comes to equity and diversity. You have five minutes. [Translation] Mr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you, I mentioned that these targets for equity and diversity, for Mr. Chair. example, in the Canada research chairs, have been in place since 2006. Universities were not held to account. That's going to change Hello, Minister Duncan. Thank you for being here today. with our putting in place those diversity and equity plans, and saying [English] there is the possibility that funding will be withheld. I do not want to go across the country and hear comments from women researchers My first question was going to touch on the excellent work that such as “Do I have a child or do I have an academic career?” Having the University of Montreal is doing on AI, but I think you've a child is risky. Wearing a larger lab coat for seven months to hide a answered that very well. I'll just point out that I think it's fantastic pregnancy should not be happening. We want all people to have a that we're making a strong investment there. chance at our research funding. During one of the rounds of consultations we did in the pre- budget, I had a gentleman come to me and he was very adamant. “I'm in the high tech business“, he said, “and if you can give one ● (0950) message, teach kids to code.” He was very strong on that. I was very happy to see we had some money put aside in the budget. Can you elaborate on the amount of money and how you see that playing out? Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Frank. Mr. Frank Baylis: A lot of that unmuzzling of science and that drive towards a more scientific approach, I see wrapped up in the We really do want to create that culture of curiosity that Dr. chief science officer, that position you're creating. Can you elaborate Roberta Bondar talks about. That means investing in our children on how you see that position playing a role in promoting science and from elementary to high school and beyond. Some of the a scientific approach? investments we make around the promotion of science. We really want to bring science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to our youth and to everybody and include art and design in that, so there's $10.8 million for PromoScience in budget 2017. I've talked Hon. Kirsty Duncan: As you know, part of my mandate letter about the 600 events happening across the country right now. I'm was to create a chief science officer. I'm happy that on December 5, really pleased that in budget 2017 there is investment for $50 million 2016, we launched the search for Canada's chief science adviser. to teach grade school students to code. It is the language of the This position was cancelled under the previous government. A chief future. science adviser will ensure that government science is made Mr. Frank Baylis: In that same consultation, I had another available to Canadians, that government scientists can speak freely businessman, who's actually an extremely successful businessman. about their work, and that scientific analyses will inform decision- He has a young daughter who's a scientist, and his frustration was making. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 11

There's an open competition. That competition closed on February On that, we will end our session. Minister Duncan, thank you very 13. This person will advise the Prime Minister, the Minister of much for coming to our committee today, as well as your colleagues. Science, and the cabinet. As well, cabinet can come back to the chief science adviser and give charges to him or her. We hope to have this We're going to break for a very strict two minutes while we switch person in place by the spring. This is really exciting. We know one over. We'll suspend for the moment. person isn't going to change the system, but it will be important to build that advisory role going forward. Thank you very much for coming. The Chair: Thank you very much. ● (0955) Mr. Masse, you have the final two minutes. Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you. Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair. ● (0955) Thanks again, Minister, for your input. (Pause) I want to get to the social sciences, but, again, I guess I would ● (0955) implore upon your government to look at Bill C-25. This is act that is amending the Canada Business Corporations Act. Part 1, in The Chair: We're back for part two. I have a couple of particular, deals with the structure of corporate boards and housekeeping notes. We are a little short on time. Our guests will do governance, and the inclusion of women and persons with their briefings, then I think the best thing to do, rather than going disabilities. The bill shied away from actually defining “human with seven-seven-seven, is to keep your time short if you have rights”. It wouldn't even comment on what a human right was with questions and we'll try to address it that way, if that's okay with the regard to racial equality. Secondly, it didn't address the issue of committee. gender by including the word “gender” in the bill. Lastly, it's moving to a model called “comply or explain”, which, Finally, I want to remind everybody that on Thursday, we have the way that the legislation is written, if you follow the legislation Minister Chagger for the first hour and Minister Bains for the second after we finish it, at the very best you're looking at probably seven hour. I'm going to ask that we keep our preambles short. Today, we years in the time duration before it can actually be reviewed once it's went over because we had preambles and I try to leave the minister actually passed. You're probably at up to 10 years from this date in to answer questions. I will have to be a lot more strict or else, on terms of reviewing that legislation from the time we pass it in the Thursday, we won't get through it and I want to make sure that we House of Commons. Because you have a majority and you do have a do. Make sure that you keep your preambles short and we have to lot of allies looking to change that, I would implore your government stick to the time because there will be a break in there. You are to reach out to those allies who want to actually make the bill forewarned. relevant, because you're now doing this in your own department, under this initiative, with the universities. Go ahead, Ben. With my remaining time, I will ask this in particular and pass it ● (1000) over to you. Social sciences and the humanities again have come up. We've heard a lot of discussion about it. Are you making any efforts, Mr. Ben Lobb: Did you send a message to Minister Bains and or is the government doing any work to bridge the social sciences Minister Chagger to omit their preamble as well? Today, you may and the humanities to some of the work of trying to privatize or bring have noticed that every time Minister Duncan started to speak, she ideas to market, so, more of the hard sciences for innovation? Are didn't provide an answer but she provided much preamble. I agree you doing anything with the social sciences and the humanities to that, if the members keep their preamble to a minimum and just ask a help in that? That seems to be a lost piece of the puzzle for getting question and the ministers keep their preamble to a minimum, it items to the marketplace, ideas to production, so to speak? works well for both. It can't be a one-way street.

Hon. Kirsty Duncan: Thank you, Brian, for highlighting the I know you talk to them a lot. If you could advise them of that importance of the social sciences and the humanities. from good old Ben, that would be appreciated. There is a large gap between the funding that goes to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Thank you. Engineering Research Council. I hope people noticed in budget 2016 that I started to close that gap because social sciences matter. It The Chair: I will keep that in mind. matters because it's talking about people, whether understanding how we relate to one another or how our societies operate, but also Once again, I cannot control what comes out of the witness' when one wants to commercialize, you need to understand people testimony, but I will cut people off. I'm just forewarning you or else and the social sciences can be of real help there. we won't get through it on Thursday. That's where we are. Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you. We now have.... I will remind everybody that we're not televised. The Chair: Thank you very much. The first hour was televised, but we are in public right now. 12 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

This morning we have from the Department of Industry, Mark Industrial designs protect product designs, such as the shape of a Schaan, director general, marketplace framework policy branch, lamp or the design of a chair. Once the amendments to the Industrial strategic policy sector; Konstantinos Georgaras, director general, Design Act come into force, industrial design rights will last the later Canadian intellectual property office, corporate strategies and of either 10 years from the date of registration or 15 years from the services branch; and Alison McDermott, director general, program date of filing. These rights prevent others from using, copying, coordination branch. selling, or manufacturing without authorization of rights holders. Today, we're getting a technical briefing on intellectual property and tech transfer in Canada. IP laws establish the requirements to obtain or challenge the Mr. Schaan, the floor is yours. rights, their use, length, and scope of protection, and the Mr. Mark Schaan (Director General, Marketplace Frame- administration governing the granting, registration, and maintenance work Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of of IP rights. IP rights are domestic but are anchored in treaties, which Industry): Good morning. It's nice to be back. set minimal requirements. My name is Mark Schaan, as you have just heard, and I'm the director general of the marketplace framework policy branch at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Along [Translation] with me are my colleagues, Alison McDermott and Konstantinos Georgaras, who also have interests on the technology transfer and intellectual property administration side. Canada’s IP regime has three main objectives. The first is to [Translation] support innovation and enable innovators to extract value from their creations and recoup investments. The second is to ensure Canadians To start off our presentation, I'll provide a brief overview of our have access to a wide range of innovative products, new intellectual property laws and of how they benefit our marketplace technologies, and new goods and services. The third is to promote frameworks. consumers' confidence in the marketplace. Then, my colleague from the science and innovation sector will provide more details regarding the relationship between IP and universities, and technology transfer in the post-secondary sector. Well-functioning marketplace frameworks generate positive out- Finally, my colleague from the Canadian Intellectual Property comes for Canadians. They provide incentives for innovation and Office, or CIPO, will provide an overview of CIPO’s mandate and creativity; ensure access to the latest technologies and ideas; foster responsibilities and some information regarding public sector competition; promote confidence in the marketplace; and balance patenting activity. competing stakeholder interests as well as the common good. [English]

First, just to put our IP laws in the broader policy context, they are ● (1005) considered to be key marketplace framework laws in Canada. We recognize that they play a critical role in encouraging innovation, attracting investment, and supporting other key drivers of the [English] Canadian economy. As you can see from the statistics, Canada has a decent track record when it comes to our marketplace frameworks. That said, we know we need to do better, particularly in the use of IP by firms. IP IP-intensive industries are key drivers of the Canadian economy. laws create terms of protection enshrining public and private rights. As this chart shows, the orange bar demonstrates that they account for almost 14% of all jobs in Canada and more than 25% of our As you see, copyrights protect original creative works, such as GDP. About 40% of all Canadian exports are from IP-intensive books, movies, music, and video games. Copyright lasts for the life industries. We know that SMEs that own IP are more like to grow to of the author plus 50 years, or 70 years for sound recording. Patents scale and have a greater propensity to export. For example, SMEs protect novel inventions, such as advancements in technology, that hold formal IP are four times more likely to export, 64% more pharmaceuticals, and processes. Patents last for 20 years from filing. likely to be high-growth, and 32% more likely to seek financing. Trademarks promote certainty in the marketplace by protecting distinctive branding used in commerce, such as a logo, a slogan, or brand names that distinguish the goods and services of one person or Canada has made strides to improve and align its IP regime with organization from those of others. Once amendments to the Trade- those of our international partners. For example, we introduced marks Act come into force, a trademark registration will last 10 amendments to ratify the CETA agreement, which included an years, renewable indefinitely for additional 10-year periods. additional period of protection for eligible pharmaceutical patents. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 13

In 2016 Canada played a leading international role in intellectual As we've been asked to be brief, in this presentation, I'll focus on property. Canada amended its Copyright Law to implement and university technology transfer. accede to the Marrakesh treaty to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print- disabled. Canada was the critical 20th country needed to bring the treaty into force internationally. Our agenda for 2017 is very ambitious. We know that there will be The Government of Canada provides support for technology a parliamentary review of the Copyright Act. The five-year review is transfer through the federal granting agencies, NSERC, SSHRC, and mandated by section 92 of the Copyright Act, which requires that CIHR, including many programs designed to encourage post- Parliament review the Copyright Act every five years. Five-year secondary and private sector research collaborations. These seek to reviews are intended to ensure that the act remains responsive to bring a wide range of research and technical expertise to bear on changes in technology. specific industrial challenges. These are also about exposing researchers to these industry needs. Budget 2017 also announced that the government will develop a new comprehensive intellectual property strategy over the coming year. This strategy will help ensure that Canada's intellectual property regime is modern and robust and supports commercializing Canadian innovations in the 21st century. These include several NSERC programs under the NSERC strategy for partnerships and innovation; the tri-council business-led The purpose of the IP strategy is to support the objectives of the networks of centres of excellence and the centres of excellence for innovation and skills plan—namely, fostering an ecosystem that commercialization and research programs, generally known as the supports businesses to grow to scale. The strategy will work to do BL-NCE and the CECR programs; as well as the Mitacs scientific this by ensuring that the IP regime is efficient, that it fosters internship program, which received significant sums of money in the innovation, and that firms have the awareness and incentive to last budget. Many of these programs include the training of highly strategically use IP to grow and compete. qualified personnel as another means to help ensure knowledge is With that I'll turn it to my colleague, Alison. also mobilized into the workforce. Ms. Alison McDermott (Director General, Program Coordi- nation Branch, Department of Industry): Great. Thank you, Mark. As mentioned, I'm the director general within ISED's science and I'll mention another program, the research support fund, formerly innovation sector. We work closely with the granting councils and known as the indirect costs program for those familiar with that. This the post-secondary education sector. is a tri-agency program that provides Canadian post-secondary institutions with support to help them defray the indirect costs of Mark has started off with a good overview of the overarching research that is funded by the federal granting councils. Under this context for IP. In my remarks I will try to narrow in on the topic of IP program, the Government of Canada directly supports costs related and technology transfer in the post-secondary education sector. to technology transfer, including the creation, expansion, and [Translation] maintenance of a TTO, and costs associated with IP protection and supporting industry partnerships. I prepared my remarks in English, but I would be happy to answer questions asked in French. [English]

Post-secondary institutions serve a variety of important functions, Metrics are an ongoing challenge in technology transfer. There are including training, the creation of scientific knowledge, and the no available metrics that fully capture the economic impact of transfer of that knowledge to those best placed to put it to use. We'll technology activities at post-secondary institutions on a national call that “technology transfer”. scale. Instead, we tend to follow narrower outcomes related to IP, IP protection is an important component of technology transfer which are the easiest to measure. You will hear talk of and we'll keep because it allows academic researchers to publish their research track of things such as patents, licences, start-ups created, and while still providing industrial partners with the incentive to licensing revenue generated. commercialize. Technology transfer offices—we'll call them TTOs —facilitate technology transfer activities at universities and colleges. These can be as varied as managing IP, developing and supporting partnerships between academia and knowledge users, and supporting entrepreneurship and company growth. Universities and colleges There can be some downsides associated with the focus on those play different roles in the mobilization of knowledge, with university kinds of metrics, dangers that TTOs can sometimes be pushed to research often driven by researcher and student curiosity, and college chase those kinds of metrics, sometimes at the cost of the quality of applied research driven largely by industry needs. the broader objective of transferring technology. 14 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

The majority of Canadian university TTOs, when last asked, may have been invented by different researchers from diverse fields. suggested that these common IP metrics, while the best that we have They might package different patents together and sell them to an in some ways, don't effectively measure the full extent of what they appropriate company that could take advantage of that. This policy do in their offices. That also reflects some evolution that's taken recognizes that researchers may not have the interest or expertise to place in recent years over the way TTOs work. Many of them are further develop and commercialize their intellectual property now more focused on other technology transfer outcomes that are independently. not IP-related but better suited to advance the Canadian economy in the long run. These are things like forming academic industrial partnerships and transfer through HQP, highly qualified personnel, of skills to the workplace. On the downside, this kind of policy can create a barrier to In terms of IP ownership policies, there is no national uniform technology transfer when university TTOs, many of which operate policy governing IP. I know this is an issue you're interested in. on cost-recovery models, sometimes tend to overvalue IP in terms of Provincial governments have the jurisdiction to set IP policy at post- trying to maximize their financial benefits. TTOs can also be less secondary institutions. The majority of these will actually defer to nimble and have less flexibility to adjust to the licensing preferences the institutions to set their own policies, which in turn are often of an individual firm than an inventor would, or a single person embedded in faculty collective agreements. would. Inventors may be less inclined under this policy to be ● (1010) involved in this critical stage of developing the technology towards commercialization. This is the counter-side of the motivation issue This has led to an overall diversity of approaches to intellectual that was mentioned in the inventor-owned model. property protection policies, which can be more or less summarized in two broad approaches. There are the inventor-owned policies and the university-owned policies. Both of them are associated with high-quality technology transfer outcomes, or they can be. Some universities have a policy that contains features of both. We refer to We have some examples of international experience. There's a lot this as the joint ownership approach, where both the inventor and the of interest in the United States, where IP ownership rights for institution share IP rights. government-funded university research have been governed by the Bayh-Dole Act since 1980. This act essentially states that the rights With respect to federally funded research, the granting councils do to inventions resulting from federally funded research belong not require institutions to follow any particular IP policy. With exclusively to universities and are subject to a number of obligations respect to community colleges, the role of applied research in regarding disclosure and royalty sharing. Canadian colleges is to help solve an industry problem. Canadian colleges normally do not own their IP. It remains with the industrial partner.

In terms of a comparison of IP ownership models, for a university The Bayh-Dole Act has often been seen as an important catalyst that adopts an inventor-owned IP policy, the research or inventor has for the increases in patenting and licensing activity that took place in the right to decide whether to sign over his or her IP to an industrial the 1980s and 1990s. It's hard to say unambiguously that this is partner. Some of the advantages of this approach are that it can be responsible for that in the sense that this strong, upward trend in highly motivating for academics. It encourages them to get more patenting and licensing did begin before the implementation of the actively involved in the commercialization of their research. It also act. You could attribute many elements of this increase to other gives them flexibility to adjust to the licensing preferences of the factors, for example, the broader scope of patentable inventions, and firm that they're dealing with. In contrast, a TTO may be constrained the fact that there was an increasing propensity to patent over this by broader institutional policies. time, and just the nature of technological progress that took place in On the downside, the success of this approach can be highly certain fields. Bio-medical sciences, for example, really picked up a dependent on the individual concerned and whether they have the lot in the eighties and nineties. kinds of skills, the ability, and the motivation to commercialize their IP and/or launch a successful start-up. This model assumes that researchers are motivated by the concept of capturing monetary benefits from the results of their research. It can also increase the ● (1015) complexity of negotiating licensing agreements due often to the inventor's lack of experience in this area. Now we'll look at the university-owned ownership model. For a university that adopts a university-owned IP policy, the university Other countries, such as the U.K., Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, has the right to sell or retain the inventor's IP once it's disclosed. Finland, Germany, and Norway, all maintain a university-owned IP Some advantages of this policy are that it seeks to simplify the model. In Australia, as in Canada, universities are able to develop process of commercializing and licensing by centralizing ownership their own policies. The majority of these use a university-owned IP and taking maximum advantage of the expertise in the TTO. It also model. Italy and Sweden use a professor-privilege IP policy in which gives universities flexibility to pool the licensing of relevant IP that IP ownership remains with the inventor. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 15

Overall, we would say there's little evidence that the policy granted. If you look at Canadian universities patenting in our office governing who owns the IP rights of an innovation has an overriding at CIPO, the University of Alberta, for example, had 27 patent impact on the success of technology transfer between institutions applications in fiscal year 2015-16. and industry as measured by the volume of patents and licences. As mentioned before, there are successful examples of both models of ownership. I'll give you a couple of examples. The University of Waterloo is often cited as an example of an inventor-owned policy Again, this is just applications in Canada. If we look at where that's very effective. UBC would be an example of a university- Canadians and universities file for patents, you will see that most owned model that works very well. They're both considered to be Canadians will file outside Canada. The top blue line on this chart leaders from a technology transfer perspective. represents all Canadians, and it shows that about 13,000 patent Other factors that are often pointed to as contributing to the applications were made in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in success of technology transfer would include things like how many 2014. If you look at the green line, there were about 4,000 patent resources a university puts towards its technology transfer office and applications by Canadians in Canada, so about three-quarters of the towards these activities in general, and the quality of contractual applicants will go to the U.S. first, and that's a business decision. agreements. As well, overall the level of education and awareness Likewise, if you look at the red and purple lines, that represents about the importance of intellectual property protection and university filings, and it's the same proportion. About three-quarters commercialization, as well as overall culture, are seen as very of universities will file in the States. important. Waterloo is an example of a university in which there is a strong culture of entrepreneurship that supports and values technology transfer, and that culture has a strong influence as well. We conducted what is called IT analytics. This allows us to dig Some other channels of technology transfer can be arguably as deeper into the data that's provided in the patent applications, and important or more important than IP licensing. As mentioned before, here you see the spread of technology that Canadian universities are there is this idea of movement of people, students in particular, from patenting worldwide. You can see this landscape of peaks and universities to the private sector or public sectors and the know-how valleys. The snow-capped peaks represent the specialty areas in they bring with them. Company creation is another mechanism. which Canadian universities are filing for patents. Two to highlight There is publication of research results and interactions through are alkyl and optical light beams, for example, and I'll get back to things like meetings and conferences. We mentioned the Mitacs that. That's the general landscape, if you will, of technology that internships that create connections between universities and firms, Canadian universities are patenting. and there are just general research partnerships and co-operative research centres. I'm going to turn it over to Konstantinos now. Mr. Konstantinos Georgaras (Director General, Canadian Now we'll look at just one university, so we can go deeper. Here, Intellectual Property Office, Corporate Strategies and Services looking at McGill, for example, in the last 15 years they filed for 273 Branch, Department of Industry): Thank you very much. patents in Canada. Worldwide they filed for 758. When we look at the patent applications, we can unbundle where the collaborations [Translation] are happening, and I understand that is an initiative this committee is Hello. My name is Konstantinos Georgaras. interested in looking at—where the collaboration is happening. In [English] 52% of these worldwide patent applications that McGill pursued over the last 15 years, over half of them had collaborations with I'm from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, a special other universities and companies. We did the same thing for UBC, operating agency of Innovation, Science and Economic Develop- but let's skip forward. ment. We are responsible for the administration of the intellectual property acts and the registration of IP.

I'd like to give you a brief overview of some of the counts and ● (1020) trends in IP and do a deeper dive into where the technologies are coming from and what those technology areas look like, where the collaboration is happening, and then finally give you a debriefing on interactions we've had with technology transfer offices to identify the barriers they have in using the IP system and what we are doing to If you dig even deeper into the patent data, you can identify where address it. the collaboration is happening. Here at the University of Ottawa this is a collaboration map looking at optical transmission and As my colleagues have mentioned, there are a number of broader communication systems, and you can see how these patents are objectives for research and technology transfer, and not all of these coming forward as collaborative applications with the University of discoveries will make it to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Ottawa and companies such as X-Ray Optical Systems or Spectalis rather we see a smaller subset in patenting. In our overall Corp., as well as Harvard and Waterloo universities. Once you start applications, we receive about 100,000 IP applications per year. In digging deeper and deeper into the data, you can see where the 2015 there were 37,000 patent applications and 22,000 patents were collaboration is happening. 16 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

Now let me step back. At CIPO our mandate is to support We don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to go down the speakers innovation and help pull through the ideas once they come to our list that we have. Please keep it short so everybody has a chance to office. We tried to better understand some of the challenges that ask at least one question. technology transfer offices and universities were facing in applying for IP, and they identified five key challenges. There is a fifth one Lloyd, you're first. that is not on this slide, but I'll start with that: cost. Clearly technology transfer offices have to make business decisions as to Mr. Lloyd Longfield: Thank you. what they pursue to patent. Our office provides a 50% discount to university applicants. It's our contribution to help reduce costs for the Thanks for a fantastic presentation here this morning. university applicant. A second issue that came up was the issue around awareness and In the short time we have, you mentioned the development of the education. We heard throughout, from technology transfer offices IP strategy in 2017. Our committee is looking at getting into this and the community around universities, that there's a need for study. At what point is your study going to need input? We don't awareness of how to effectively use IP. With that, CIPO is launching want to miss the train. very extensive work on developing educational programs and material for IP strategy. We have something called IP case studies. Mr. Mark Schaan: You'll have seen in budget 2017 that the We work with students in universities to help them understand IP, as commitment was for a comprehensive national strategy within a they're part of the spin-off, if you will, for university discovery. year. We are looking and working closely with Minister Bains and his office to help him undertake that strategy and lay it out. Given A third element that came up in terms of a barrier or a challenge that it is aimed at being comprehensive, I think the sooner the better that universities face, is, as I mentioned earlier, that three-quarters is obviously great, because we're in the thick of working on some of will file outside of Canada. There was the issue of harmonization the ideas now. We're very much aiming to try to have something internationally. CIPO is working very hard to implement some within that year deadline at the latest. international IP treaties, and we're targeting 2019 for them to come into force. This will help to ensure that there's a harmonized system, Mr. Lloyd Longfield: We're getting into our mid-year break when and it will help facilitate IP filing in Canada and abroad. we go back to our constituency offices. Is the fall too late? A fourth element was trying to understand the breadth of Mr. Mark Schaan: The fall as an input would be quite useful. If technology and what's coming forward. What we're doing, and I the fall was the beginning of your study, I think that would be demonstrated earlier through IP analytics, is trying to show where challenging. the technologies are coming up. That helps identify the collabora- tion. This type of information can help inform professors, Mr. Lloyd Longfield: That's helpful. Thank you. technology transfers, where the collaboration can happen. The Chair: Earl. The final element was really directed at the office itself. Our databases are lacking, and we are working hard to modernize them. Mr. Earl Dreeshen: Thank you very much. We have done quite a bit over the last few months to bring more information forward to users. Of course, as you may be aware, we just came back from To sum up, you've seen some of the trends. We've done a deep Washington, D.C., and we were talking about intellectual property dive into the technology areas. We are taking action at CIPO, for and that type of thing there. One of the things that was brought up those coming to our door, to help facilitate their applications going was patent trolls. I think, Konstantinos, that has to do with the forward. education, the awareness, and so on, although there are a bunch of other things. I'll wrap up with that. ● (1025) From your perspective, can you let us know what that is and how Mr. Mark Schaan: Great. you feel that governments or universities might be able to protect themselves? Some of us heard what was going on there, but could Just quickly before we get to your questions, I want to note that we all get a feel for that? where we indicated that provincial governments have jurisdiction to set IP policy, we should be clear that IP policy and IP legislation are Mr. Konstantinos Georgaras: I'll start the response, and then I constitutionally federal, but education is provincial. When we talk can turn to my colleague on the policy issues. about those IP policies, we mean university-owned versus inventor- owned. With regard to patent trolls, we've been looking at this very closely over the last few years. What we have determined from an IP We're very interested in your questions. Thank you so much. office perspective is that the more challenging issues are largely The Chair: Thank you so much for this extremely detailed focused in technology areas such as software, and that seems to be technical briefing. It will help us. Because we are public, we can concentrated more in the United States. We patent software request that this be entered into the study if we want to, and we can differently here in Canada, and we are not noticing the same kind call them back. of trolling activity here. In fact, it's very limited. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 17

That said, as I mentioned, most Canadians will be filing in the The Chair: Thank you. United States. Anything we can do to help inform them of the market, whether it's the U.S. or other markets, that is our job, to Frank. bring that to light. Mr. Frank Baylis: My questions are to do with metrics. I have a ● (1030) couple of questions, first of all on the AUTM metrics. My understanding is that those metrics are very weak because not Mr. Earl Dreeshen: Before you go on, could you explain what everybody submits their data. In fact, I think something like half of patent trolling is so that everybody knows and it's not just a term? them don't even bother submitting. When you put these numbers up Mr. Konstantinos Georgaras: I'll turn to my colleague. here, then, am I right in understanding that they're very weak Mr. Mark Schaan: I'll be super brief. numbers? Ms. Alison McDermott: I could come back to you with more There's an important distinction to be made. There are non- information on the strength. I'm not aware of their being terribly practising entities, or NPEs, that essentially have patent portfolios or weak on the basis of participation rates, but I could find out— IP portfolios that they use for the purposes of extolling rents— licences or otherwise. I would make a distinction between an NPE Mr. Frank Baylis: I am. Maybe you could double-check to see and a troll. how many responded to the last study that was done, how many universities are part of AUTM, and how many are bothering to A troll is someone who essentially has acquired vague or submit data or not. ambiguous patents or intellectual property licences purely for the Ms. Alison McDermott: Okay. purposes of shaking someone down for rents that they might not have been able to get in a courtroom but are frightening enough to Mr. Frank Baylis: This is a tease-out of a broader study that they the university or innovator that they're willing to pay, simply because did for the United States primarily, and Canada fit into it. If you of the generalized nature of what they own. would, please look at that. To complete your question, we're looking at this issue in great It brings me to a second question about metrics. You've been able detail, both in terms of its incidence in Canada and the degree to to tease out some numbers on Canadian universities filing in Canada. which our rules can help prevent some of those bad behaviours, but If I understand correctly, you don't have that kind of information on more importantly, on the strategy side, the degree to which our firms filing in the United States, or can you go piece by piece to pull it out, are IP-savvy in their capacity to prevent it themselves and be although there's no repository for it? defensive at the outset. Mr. Konstantinos Georgaras: We rely on a number of databases, The Chair: Thank you. including the World Intellectual Property Organization's, to pull together this data. In fact, I'll refer to the number of Canadian Brian. universities filing in the United States. In 2014, there were 550, Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you. approximately. What about patent unicorns? Mr. Frank Baylis: How did you tease that information out? Mr. Konstantinos Georgaras: The individual offices from I'm just kidding. around the world contribute their data to the World Intellectual Mr. Mark Schaan: Mr. Masse, you stumped me. Property Organization. That's the United Nations body for Mr. Brian Masse: At any rate, we have investor angels and patent intellectual property. trolls. Mr. Frank Baylis: If they have bothered to submit it, then, you can get it. If they haven't, you can't. With regard to the top 10 university filers at CIPO, I think we should attach this presentation to anything we do for the public. It's Mr. Konstantinos Georgaras: That's correct. Now, a very very helpful. important issue here also depends upon the IP ownership. Some universities will file in the name of the institution. Others will file in Could you explain why the universities are being ranked the way the name of the researcher. That becomes a little more challenging to they are? I don't know if it's just a judgment call or if there's a pull together. particular reason. I'm interested in that. I'll leave it for you, and that's all. When we try to understand the value of the metrics, some of these metrics need it to be understood that there are— Mr. Konstantinos Georgaras: The ranking here is just a straight count of the number of applications. This includes patent files as ● (1035) well as trademark filings. As you can see, many universities are very Mr. Frank Baylis: I appreciate that. I think you mentioned very active on the trademark side. It's just a listing. clearly that the metrics are weak. I don't want people to look at these Mr. Brian Masse: Maybe in the future, though, we could see things and think these are strong numbers, when I believe they are something with application to market, or something like that. I don't not. want us to be continually on that, but that would be an interesting The Chair: We're going to move on to Majid. part of it. Just for your reference, bells have been delayed to 11:05. The vote At any rate, thank you for the information and presentation. is at 11:30. 18 INDU-61 May 16, 2017

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Thank you. You've Earl, do you have a question? done a great job. I have a quick question. Mr. Earl Dreeshen: Perhaps. Frank talked about metrics and so In your opening remarks you stated that you only focus on on. The ratings that we see—second in technology and technological universities. Do you have any data or information you can share with and economic value with the OECD, and so on—are all international us on any type of the following partnership models: universities, rankings that have come.... I was with the minister in Germany, and colleges, businesses, and governments? We are trying to look at how we had a chance to talk about the actual investments. Quite frankly, we can expedite commercialization. We know that in the colleges, we hear things about dollar figures and so on, but in the past we were applied research and partnering with businesses recently has been putting the same dollars into research as Germany was on GDP and very successful. Right now, we are not considering it, and I didn't see per population. anything in this report. I'm not saying you excluded it. I just want to know whether you have any input on that issue. The problem of course is when business comes in and asks, where Ms. Alison McDermott: We are quite interested in studying the are we going to jump in? We've just heard it. We have issues with level of interaction that's taking place. For example, working with each of the provinces having their own jurisdictions, and then the some of our stakeholder groups, Polytechnics Canada and CICan, we universities within them. We still have six time zones. We have all of can probably get you some information about the levels of activity this, quite frankly, even off the draw, so I think that's another part we and partnerships that take place. It's more a question of tracking need to take a look at. The dollars are there and the research is there, activities that take place than of getting a sense of what an overall but too often it seems we're just checking off the box to say we did a baseline at a national level might be. This is an area in which we study, instead of saying how we innovated and commercialized. have an interest in doing a better job of metrics tracking. The focus for today being on intellectual property protection meant that the Those are some of the things we'll be looking for. If you're able to focus wasn't so much on colleges, because they tend not to— give us information on that as we go through the study, or if there's anything you could quickly respond to now, at least it gives us a Mr. Majid Jowhari: I'm going more from a technology transfer direction that we could travel in. side. I know time is limited, however, so we'll come back to you. Mr. Chandra Arya: There is a great degree of information ● (1040) regarding the number of patents filed by universities. Is somebody Mr. Mark Schaan: A superquick response would be that those tracking the number of such patents that are actually commercia- commercialization and innovation outcomes and the weak perfor- lized? mance were really at the heart of the innovation and skills plan. The Mr. Mark Schaan: We have a number of metrics that we IP strategy is a part of that partly because we recognize that one of continue, and to Alison's point, the challenge of getting at the right the tools in getting to better outcomes is more sophisticated use of metrics in the intellectual property space is a hard one. The number intellectual property by our firms. We often have invention, but we of patents filed is only one indicator. We have licensing revenue, for don't often get the rent that comes out of that invention. That's one of instance, that comes into the institution. the things we know we need to focus on.

However, to Alison's point from earlier, licensing revenue often The Chair: Frank, you have the last one. doesn't tell you a complete story either, because you can tell how much the university has earned from it, but that's not necessarily a Mr. Frank Baylis: My question relates to the Bayh-Dole Act in full indication of whether or not that was the best value you could the States. That came about because the Americans found that they have gotten out of the intellectual property. There may have been a had an awful lot of IP stuck in their universities, and they were race to license as opposed to a race to bundle. looking for ways to get it out. Mr. Chandra Arya: We are not talking about the amount of revenue earned here. We are talking about the number of patents As you mentioned here, they had some obligations, particularly actually being commercialized. disclosure. We fund our universities to the tune of over $1 billion, with zero strings attached. I'm not necessarily looking for royalty Mr. Mark Schaan: Licensing revenue is a good indicator of that, sharing, but have you considered looking at a forced request for in part because licensing suggests that someone's paying you for the disclosure tied to this funding? That's my first question. use of the intellectual property, which means it's actually in application. In terms of the degree to which you can then actually The second is, have you done any type of study on the Bayh-Dole look at use, it would vary by the type of intellectual property. In Act that you might be able to share with us, what value it has trademarks, for instance, there are searches, and then your freedom brought to the American economy, and why they brought it in? to operate would vary enormously depending on the intellectual property zone. Ms. Alison McDermott: There have been a number of studies on the Bayh-Dole Act. Overall they're not incredibly conclusive, as The heat maps—as they were, about activity and collaborations— mentioned, about the.... A lot of things happened at the same time, so are an indication that can often give you a sense, because you know there aren't a lot of studies that would conclusively point to the who the commercial actor is and then you can do the digging as to Bayh-Dole Act in itself as being the factor responsible. There are what the actual value is. many people who think that it is an important factor, but it's one of The Chair: Thank you. those things that's hard to tease out specifically. May 16, 2017 INDU-61 19

We're actually quite interested in these questions. I would add a Ms. Alison McDermott: One of the things we're doing is that we caveat that a lot of the IP rules are tied up with universities and their have just been been surveying. In 2016 we undertook a survey of collective bargaining agreements. These are relatively hard things to universities and colleges with respect to issues around IP, technology change. transfer, the work of the technology transfer offices. We're just compiling that data, and disclosure is one of the issues that was on Mr. Frank Baylis: What about the disclosure part—the disclosure there, so we'll likely have more information to share with the of who's patented? I don't think that's tied up. committee as we do the follow-up and put that data together, but a Mr. Mark Schaan: There is a transparent registry of patent filings large number of universities have their own policies on disclosure. that does have the disclosure. The only other point I'd put on the The Chair: Thank you very much to our Department of Industry disclosure is—and Alison and I have been talking about this in the officials for coming. context of the IP strategy—there have been a number of initiatives that Alison pointed to, including the centres of excellence for Before we break, I just want to mention that we have the minister commercialization and research, for instance, where a CECR like coming in on Thursday. Next Monday we have another technical MaRS Innovation has a disclosure requirement within their member briefing, so we'll have the Department of Industry, but we also have institutions that gets disclosed to MI. MI then bundles, works on that CRTC coming in that day as well. IP, and figures out how best to get it into a commercialized market. If we could start getting in preliminary witnesses for both studies, we might be able to actually use the first to start witnesses or at least We are looking at some of those important mechanisms for who the following one. If we can actually start to try to give preliminary are you disclosing to, not just a patent registry, but potentially, witnesses, that would be great. whether there is a receptor on the other side that can help really bring full value to that intellectual property. Thank you very much to our officials for coming in, and great day, guys. Mr. Frank Baylis: And help you collect the metrics that you need specifically.... Thanks. We're adjourned.

Published under the authority of the Speaker of Publié en conformité de l’autorité the House of Commons du Président de la Chambre des communes SPEAKER’S PERMISSION PERMISSION DU PRÉSIDENT

Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons Il est permis de reproduire les délibérations de la Chambre et and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is de ses comités, en tout ou en partie, sur n’importe quel hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate support, pourvu que la reproduction soit exacte et qu’elle ne and is not presented as official. This permission does not soit pas présentée comme version officielle. Il n’est toutefois extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial pas permis de reproduire, de distribuer ou d’utiliser les purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this délibérations à des fins commerciales visant la réalisation d'un permission or without authorization may be treated as profit financier. Toute reproduction ou utilisation non permise copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. ou non formellement autorisée peut être considérée comme Authorization may be obtained on written application to the une violation du droit d’auteur aux termes de la Loi sur le Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. droit d’auteur. Une autorisation formelle peut être obtenue sur présentation d’une demande écrite au Bureau du Président de la Chambre. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not La reproduction conforme à la présente permission ne constitute publication under the authority of the House of constitue pas une publication sous l’autorité de la Chambre. Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the Le privilège absolu qui s’applique aux délibérations de la proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to Chambre ne s’étend pas aux reproductions permises. Lors- these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes qu’une reproduction comprend des mémoires présentés à un briefs to a Committee of the House of Commons, authoriza- comité de la Chambre, il peut être nécessaire d’obtenir de tion for reproduction may be required from the authors in leurs auteurs l’autorisation de les reproduire, conformément à accordance with the Copyright Act. la Loi sur le droit d’auteur. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the La présente permission ne porte pas atteinte aux privilèges, privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of pouvoirs, immunités et droits de la Chambre et de ses comités. Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this Il est entendu que cette permission ne touche pas l’interdiction permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching de contester ou de mettre en cause les délibérations de la or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in Chambre devant les tribunaux ou autrement. La Chambre courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right conserve le droit et le privilège de déclarer l’utilisateur and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a coupable d’outrage au Parlement lorsque la reproduction ou reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission. l’utilisation n’est pas conforme à la présente permission.

Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the Aussi disponible sur le site Web du Parlement du Canada à following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca l’adresse suivante : http://www.parl.gc.ca